Overview
  • Smart Alarm Management

Why the Security Industry is Ahead of Industrial and Building Automation?

Robin
6 min

Why the security industry is far ahead of industrial and building automation when it comes to alarms?

In modern industrial environments and building automation systems, thousands of alarms are generated every day.
PLCs control machines, SCADA systems monitor processes, BMS platforms manage HVAC and energy, IoT sensors track conditions and access control systems report activity.

Yet one fundamental question often remains unanswered:

What really happens after an alarm is triggered in an industrial control system or building automation environment?

In many cases, not very much.

The alarm is displayed in SCADA.
It is highlighted in the BMS.
It is acknowledged on an HMI.
In some cases, a phone call is made.
And then it disappears. Somehow.

In the security industry, that would never be accepted.

In security, an alarm is not data. It is an instruction.

Security control rooms were never designed to collect signals for reporting.
They were designed for one single purpose:

To react. Immediately and correctly.

Intrusion, fire, medical emergency, sabotage, system failure:
Each alarm represents a possible threat to people, infrastructure or operations.

This is why the security industry has always worked by a strict principle:

  • Every alarm must be owned
  • Every alarm must trigger a defined process
  • Every response must be documented
  • Every decision must be traceable

In a control room, an alarm without action does not exist.

Now compare that with many PLC, SCADA or building automation environments, where alarms often remain just technical messages.

Questions operators and managers of PLC, SCADA and BMS systems are starting to ask:

“Why does my SCADA system shows hundreds of alarms per day but no clear actions follow?”
Because SCADA was built to monitor and visualise processes, not to orchestrate human response.

“Why do alarms from my PLCs appear in one system, while alarms from my building automation system appear in another?”
Because most systems were developed in separate domains, without a unified alarm logic. One system shows hex values, another shows digital signals, a third displays plain text.

“Why does nobody feel responsible for alarms coming from our industrial control systems?”
Because responsibility is not part of PLC or BMS architecture. It must be defined at a process level.

“Why are alarms from HVAC, power supply and industrial equipment not connected?”
Because most platforms manage only their own domain, not the entire operational context.

“Why do critical alarms in my industrial system stay inside the control room instead of reaching the right people in the field directly?”
Because traditional systems focus on local operation, not cross-team coordination.

“Why is it so difficult to trace who reacted to which alarm in our facility?”
Because many industrial and building automation platforms prioritise control, not accountability.

These are not technical defects.
They are concept limits.

What the security industry mastered long before SCADA and smart buildings

Long before Industry 4.0, digital twins and AI-driven analytics, the security world had already developed a mature alarm philosophy:

An alarm is always the beginning of a process. Never the end.

There is no:

  • Orphaned alarm
  • Unassigned responsibility
  • Untracked response

Instead, there is:

  • Ownership
  • Escalation
  • Verification
  • Documentation
  • Improvement

This is why control rooms can operate under extreme pressure.
And this is exactly what modern industrial and building environments are now missing.

Why PLC and building automation environments need this shift in mindset

Large facilities and industrial sites have become more complex than ever:

  • Multiple PLCs and SCADA systems
  • Multiple BMS and energy management platforms
  • Multiple buildings and production areas
  • Multiple vendors and service partners

Managers are no longer just supervising machines.
They are supervising risk, responsibility and reaction.

This leads to new questions:

“How do I ensure that alarms from PLCs and SCADA systems automatically trigger human action?”
“How do I make sure building automation systems support people, not just equipment?”
“How do I guarantee that every critical alarm results in accountability?”
“How can I connect machines, buildings and response teams into one flow?”
“How can I move from reactive to structured response?”

These are not questions of hardware.
They are questions of mindset.

And that is exactly where the security industry is far ahead.

What would change if industrial and building automation adopted a security mindset?

Imagine if your industrial and building automation environments followed the same principles as a security control room:

  • Every PLC alarm starts a process
  • Every SCADA alarm has an owner
  • Every BMS alarm creates a documented action
  • Every incident is reviewed and improved

The result would be:

  • Less noise
  • Less confusion
  • Faster reactions
  • Clearer responsibilities
  • Better protection for people and infrastructure

At that point, alarms would no longer be interruptions.
They would become structured decision points.

Maybe the real innovation is not another control system

… but a new understanding of what an alarm truly represents.

To the security industry, an alarm is a commitment to act.
A moment of responsibility.
A trigger for protection.

Perhaps it is time for PLC, SCADA and building automation environments to stop seeing alarms as system messages and start treating them as what they truly are:

Moments that demand a coordinated human response.

Thx. A former PLC engineer.